Reincarnate and its interpretation

[Will]

I'm a writer. Writing is like painting... you build meaning through setting up words and sentences to create a picture of what you are describing.

Writing in a technically and literally precise manner produces stuff as dense and fun to read as a legal document.

The level of literal reading of the rules being described is not intended for any writing below legal and technical writing (and even then, some technical writing isn't that precise).

That is, I don't think that the fact you have to interpret the spell through considering all the sentences in combination, along with what the chart suggests, is a flaw but rather the intent and style the writer(s) intended.

 

[Fifth Element]

That is, I don't think that the fact you have to interpret the spell through considering all the sentences in combination, along with what the chart suggests, is a flaw but rather the intent and style the writer(s) intended.

No one said it is a flaw, or that the writer's intent was as Jeff's reading suggests. He's just saying that the text needs to be interpreted to be applied correctly, which I'm sure you'd agree with, because the words as written, seem to imply differently when read at face value. All rules need to be interpreted.

Also, it's bad form to continue an argument with someone under a temporary ban. How do you expect him to reply to any points you make?

 

[Will]

Well, I'm also arguing with you, Fifth.

 

[Fifth Element]

Well, I'm also arguing with you, Fifth.

That's Mr. Element to you.

 

[Will]

Don Fifth?

 

[Nail]

I agree with Hypersmurf et al.

As do I, and all of the groups I've ever played with.

That is, we agree that "Reincarnate does not remove the racial modifers to the abilities Int, Wis, or Chr."

Says me. FWIW (not much! )

 

[s-dub]

For what it's worth, I'm with the majority.

I will concede, taken out of context, the phrase, "remove the subject's racial adjustments" does not discriminate between the mental and physical attributes.

However, I think that the sentence has the understood meaning of "remove the subjects [physical] racial ajustments.

The factors that implicate this is the previous sentence as well as the chart for re-applying the physical modifiers only. An orc get +4 to strength but no int, wis, or cha penalty. Logically, this means that int, wis, or cha are NOT dependent on the subjects new body. If the wording of the sentence "remove the subject's racial adjustments" applied to all scores, shouldn't the mental ability scores table include the mental modifiers?

There are really two ways to look at it. Either the body DOES influence mental scores and you should apply mental modifiers as well as physical when reincarnating (and eliminate the previous body's modifiers) , or the body DOES NOT influence the mental scores and you netiher strip nor gain from having a new body.

I think that either are valid ways to interpret the RAW. I actually would prefer the spell to strip all adjustments and re-add ALL adjustments, but it's just not written that way.

Consider the following: A PC is playing an orc character, which has an LA of 0 and +4 str, -2 Int, -2 Wisdom, and -2 Charisma, with darkvision and lightsensivity, LA 0. He dies in combat and is reincarnated as a human. Now his modifiers are -2 to Int, Wis, and CHA, no darkvision, and no light sentivity. He's lost 4 to strength and his darkvision and picked a +1 on attack, spot, and search in daylight.

Now Consider the following. A PC is playing a custom class that takes a -2 to str, dex, and con and adds +2 to int and wis. He dies and is resurrected as a Orc which gets +4 to str. Now the character has +4 str, +2 int, and +2 wis with a LA of 0.

I think that stripping and readding the racial benfits makes more sense from a balance perspective. If I ever have a player who gives up the CZilla for the DZilla, I'll probably houserule that reincarnate works that way.

 

[Nifft]

Also, it's bad form to continue an argument with someone under a temporary ban. How do you expect him to reply to any points you make?

Was he really the only one arguing for his interpretation?

Huh. -- N

 

[Fifth Element]

Was he really the only one arguing for his interpretation?

Huh. -- N

I may not agree with his interpretation, but I will defend to the death his right to make it

 

[Al'Kelhar]

I may not agree with his interpretation, but I will defend to the death his right to make it

That's seditious talk, these days.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar